shetuck
What do you need water for, Sunshine?
just saw this on my local PBS affiliate...
Link: Big Time Losers (PBS)
seemed very biased... public tv/radio biased???
typical of the way public tv/radio has more-and-more tended in recent years to seriously oversimply complex issues and done anything and everything it takes to make themselves increasengly irrelevant.
yes, the facts are that athletes do get preferential treatment; but so what, so do many other groups on campuses. it's such a no-brainer for PBS and most of their audience (and, yes, i am a regular "consumer" of what they produce) to pick on college sports, that it all seems very juveline and parochial.
they picked out some unkown (for the most part) ex-college athletes and focused in on how they received special favors and assistance. the documentary tries to make the argument, with the help of Frank Deford (never knew he was such a gangly mo-fo), that it all just reeks of un-americanism that these athletes aren't primarily competing on academic merit. they are basically trying to say that it's not right that athletes get extra assistance just because they have to juggle academics with athletics and that, ultimately, in the long-run this is not fair for the athletes who don't make it...
mind you, i wasn't a collegiate athlete. but it all seems like sour grapes to me...
anyhow, i was wondering if anybody else here saw it and if they had any other perspectives or reactions.
i want to stress that the scope of this thread isn't some kind of BP referendum on public broadcasting. the intent, rather, is to have a thread where we can share opinions and thought about the extent ya'll* feel college athletes are/aren't unfairly exploited by academic institutions.
* in the spirit of attracting our LSU fans to the debate
Link: Big Time Losers (PBS)
Link: Big Time Losers (PBS)
seemed very biased... public tv/radio biased???

typical of the way public tv/radio has more-and-more tended in recent years to seriously oversimply complex issues and done anything and everything it takes to make themselves increasengly irrelevant.
yes, the facts are that athletes do get preferential treatment; but so what, so do many other groups on campuses. it's such a no-brainer for PBS and most of their audience (and, yes, i am a regular "consumer" of what they produce) to pick on college sports, that it all seems very juveline and parochial.
they picked out some unkown (for the most part) ex-college athletes and focused in on how they received special favors and assistance. the documentary tries to make the argument, with the help of Frank Deford (never knew he was such a gangly mo-fo), that it all just reeks of un-americanism that these athletes aren't primarily competing on academic merit. they are basically trying to say that it's not right that athletes get extra assistance just because they have to juggle academics with athletics and that, ultimately, in the long-run this is not fair for the athletes who don't make it...
mind you, i wasn't a collegiate athlete. but it all seems like sour grapes to me...
anyhow, i was wondering if anybody else here saw it and if they had any other perspectives or reactions.
i want to stress that the scope of this thread isn't some kind of BP referendum on public broadcasting. the intent, rather, is to have a thread where we can share opinions and thought about the extent ya'll* feel college athletes are/aren't unfairly exploited by academic institutions.
* in the spirit of attracting our LSU fans to the debate
Link: Big Time Losers (PBS)
Big Time Losers examines the price colleges and their athletes pay when sports becomes big business.
An elite college basketball player says in the film, "It's not about what you can do in the classroom. It's only about what you can do on the court." Big Time Losers follows up with this player? and others like him? to see what happens after college, when the cheering stops.
Many student athletes benefit from the discipline, leadership skills and networks that come with being a part of a great team. A successful team can also be a source of pride for individuals and help bring in revenue for a university. That's the bright side.
Critics charge the increasing influence of money?through corporate sponsorship, apparel sales, advertising and TV rights-have muddied up a sports system founded on the principals of building sound bodies and minds.
"It's a multi-billion dollar business," Harry Edwards, a sports-sociologist, says in the film.
Top-level coaches earn nearly $1 million dollars on average in football and $1.2 million in basketball. Universities spend hundreds of thousands on luxurious locker rooms meant to woo prospective athletes and keep current ones happy. And colleges pay for athletes' personal tutors and athlete-only "academic centers".
Unfortunately, however, at most universities athletic costs far exceed revenue. Only about 40 universities can claim that their athletic departments turn a profit.
Who ends up paying?
cont'd...
Last edited: